Shipp v. Schaaf
379 F.Supp.3d 1033 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To obtain a preliminary injunction preventing a city's temporary closure of a homeless encampment, plaintiffs must present specific evidence of a pattern of unconstitutional conduct, not merely general allegations. The Eighth Amendment protection against criminalizing homelessness established in Martin v. Boise does not apply to temporary, non-criminal encampment closures for public health and safety purposes.
Facts:
- The City of Oakland had a Standard Operating Procedure (S.O.P.) for clearing homeless encampments, requiring 72-hour notice before a closure and the storage of collected personal property for at least 90 days.
- The S.O.P. allowed for the immediate disposal of items considered trash, hazardous, or a threat to public health and safety.
- Brent Shipp and Eric De Guzman were unhoused individuals living in an encampment on East 12th Street in Oakland.
- Shipp and De Guzman had previously been evicted from other encampments and alleged the City improperly disposed of their belongings, contrary to the S.O.P.
- On March 29, 2019, the City of Oakland posted a notice at the encampment, stating it would be temporarily closed for eight hours on April 3, 2019, for a thorough cleaning.
- The notice specified that any property left at the site would be removed and stored by Public Works, but property that was unsafe or hazardous would be discarded immediately.
Procedural Posture:
- Brent Shipp and Eric De Guzman filed a pro se lawsuit against the City of Oakland in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
- Plaintiffs immediately moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction to prevent the City's planned temporary closure of their encampment.
- The District Court granted an ex parte TRO for 14 days, temporarily enjoining the City from clearing the encampment.
- The court then ordered the City to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued.
- The City filed its response, a hearing was held, and the court considered the motion for a preliminary injunction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the temporary closure of a homeless encampment for cleaning, conducted pursuant to a city policy that provides for notice and storage of personal property, warrant a preliminary injunction based on alleged Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, where plaintiffs offer only general, non-specific evidence of the city's past failure to comply with its own policy?
Opinions:
Majority - Jon S. Tigar
No. A preliminary injunction is not warranted because the plaintiffs have not made a clear showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. On the Eighth Amendment claim, the temporary, non-criminal closure of an encampment for cleaning does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under Martin v. Boise, which prohibits criminalizing the status of homelessness. The Ninth Circuit in Martin explicitly permitted ordinances regulating sleeping in particular locations or at particular times. On the Fourteenth Amendment claim, the City's written S.O.P. is facially constitutional as it provides for pre-deprivation notice and a post-deprivation opportunity to recover property. While plaintiffs allege the City has a pattern of violating its own policy, their evidentiary declarations are too general and lack the specific details necessary to demonstrate that the City unlawfully destroyed property, as opposed to lawfully discarding items that were hazardous or trash. Without specific evidence showing a pattern of violations, the plaintiffs cannot establish a 'realistic threat' of future irreparable harm required for injunctive relief.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the high evidentiary burden required to obtain a preliminary injunction against a municipality's management of homeless encampments. It narrowly construes the scope of Martin v. Boise, establishing that the Eighth Amendment does not grant unhoused individuals a right to remain in a specific location indefinitely, especially against temporary public health clearings that do not involve criminal sanctions. The ruling underscores that when a government's written policy is constitutional on its face, a plaintiff challenging its application must provide specific, detailed evidence of a pattern of misconduct, as conclusory allegations are insufficient. This makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to preemptively block encampment clearings without substantial, concrete proof of past unlawful actions by the city.
